System and method for building diverse language models

ABSTRACT

Disclosed herein are systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media for collecting web data in order to create diverse language models. A system configured to practice the method first crawls, such as via a crawler operating on a computing device, a set of documents in a network of interconnected devices according to a visitation policy, wherein the visitation policy is configured to focus on novelty regions for a current language model built from previous crawling cycles by crawling documents whose vocabulary considered likely to fill gaps in the current language model. A language model from a previous cycle can be used to guide the creation of a language model in the following cycle. The novelty regions can include documents with high perplexity values over the current language model.

PRIORITY INFORMATION

The present application is a continuation of U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 15/212,944, filed Jul. 18, 2016, which is a continuation ofU.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/797,680, filed Jul. 13, 2015, nowU.S. Pat. No. 9,396,183, issued on Jul. 19, 2016, which is acontinuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/042,890, filed Mar.8, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 9,081,760, issued Jul. 14, 2015, the contentsof which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.

BACKGROUND 1. Technical Field

The present disclosure relates to generating language models (LMs) andmore specifically to generating language models based on data gatheredby crawling web pages.

2. Introduction

The world wide web is an invaluable data repository. The text data onthe web can be harnessed for tasks as diverse as named entityrecognition, word sense disambiguation, and machine translation innatural language processing, search and question answering ininformation retrieval, and pronunciation modeling and language modelingin Speech Recognition.

Text on the web is so attractive for these applications for severalreasons. Apart from the sheer size of the textual repository, web textis compelling because it is diverse and not limited to a particulardomain. This aspect can be important as language technologies begin tocope with handling open domain input in tasks such as search,question-answering, and language translation. Further, web text, such asnews websites, blogs, microblogs and others, is dynamic, and tracks thecurrent news and popular events. For these reasons, recent research hasexploited the textual content of the web to create models for naturallanguage tools, in particular, language models.

Typically, language models are built on a training corpus of sentenceswith the assumption that the distribution of n-grams in the training setis the same as the distribution of n-grams in the task context where thelanguage model would be used. This assumption, also called as theindependent and identically distributed (IID) assumption, is reasonablefor tasks which are domain limited and where the target data does notchange over time. However, in open domain applications such asquestion-answering, broadcast news speech recognition, where the inputto the models change based on the current events, the IID assumptionresults in a mismatch between the training and target contexts. Thismismatch can be interpreted as holes or gaps in the training data. Toaddress this issue, language models are typically transformed to matchthe target distributions using adaptation techniques.

One approach is focused crawling. Focused crawlers collect web pages ina well-defined topic. For instance, a focused crawler can look for webpages in domains such as astronomy, Linux, cancer, etc. Another focusedcrawler tries to locate web forms in domains as airfare, hotel, cars,etc. The more pages/forms collected in these domains by these crawlers,the better their policy.

Another approach is language modeling. Language modeling can be appliedto three particular problems: query spelling, query bracketing and querysegmentation. The anchor language model is more similar to the queries(lower perplexity) than the body of the page and also obtained the bestperformance in almost all the presented scenarios for these three tasks.One query-based method collects web data to build a language model forspoken dialog domains in combination with an in-domain language model,created from dialogs in the domain. The queries are generated fromutterances of dialogs and the resulting pages are cleaned by selectingthe sentences in these pages more similar to sentences in the domain.Experiments in the financial transaction domain showed a great reductionin the word error rate by adding the web language model.

Still other methods focus more on the process of building the languagemodel from web data and/or time-sensitive data. For instance, one methodadapts the language model as chunks of data are available, as in thescenario of web crawling, while another method builds general-purposelanguage models by partitioning the data into mixture components givingdifferent weights for these components and by taking into account therecency of the words, recent words having a higher probability ofappearing in the future. However, each of these approaches includessignificant drawbacks and do not crawl web pages or generate languagemodels in a sufficiently efficient manner.

SUMMARY

Additional features and advantages of the disclosure will be set forthin the description which follows, and in part will be obvious from thedescription, or can be learned by practice of the herein disclosedprinciples. The features and advantages of the disclosure can berealized and obtained by means of the instruments and combinationsparticularly pointed out in the appended claims. These and otherfeatures of the disclosure will become more fully apparent from thefollowing description and appended claims, or can be learned by thepractice of the principles set forth herein.

This disclosure handles the mismatch problem in open domain applicationsin a different way. To fill the gaps present in the language model, thisapproach collects web text whose vocabulary is not well represented inthe model, producing a more diverse language model. Unlike a traditionalstatic-corpus driven method where models trained on static corpora wouldsoon be outdated due to the changing profiles of the input, web textbased models can be continuously updated to keep them from becomingstale.

The language modeling approach motivates the usage of language modelsfor information retrieval tasks whereas the approach disclosed herein isa solution to produce better language models by building language modelsfrom the web to help in the problem of word prediction. The approach ofusing queries to build language models works well in well-defined andfocused domain, however when the goal is to build language models formore general purposes, such as newscasts, a more scalable approach canbetter handle the limit for the numbers of queries that can be issued toa search engine.

Further, in direct contrast to traditional focused crawling, theapproaches set forth herein build a broad-domain language model byavoiding crawling pages which are well represented in previous crawls byexploiting patterns in the links, anchors and around the links to guidethe crawler towards regions with pages with high perplexity, and useonline learning to change the crawling policy according to some feedbackabout the quality of the pages current crawled. Online learning isspecially important in very dynamic scenarios, such as newscasts,because a policy used in a previous crawling cycle might not have thesame effect in the current one.

This approach unfocuses the crawler on previous collected data, fromwhich the language model was originated, and crawls for regions ofnovelty with respect to the language model. The crawler identifies theseregions by using an information theoretic measure, and then guides itsvisitation policy based on the patterns of links in these regions.Moreover, in the example topic of newscasts, the scope of the crawler isrestricted to pages in news web sites. One challenge is to deal withthis very dynamic domain wherein new events appear constantly. Thecrawler can adjust its focus as the crawl progresses, to be able toreflect in its policy the most current state of its environment.

In summary, some features of this approach include (1) a novel crawlingstrategy that is tightly coupled with the goal of creating diverselanguage models for newscasts by filling in the gaps in the currentlanguage model; (2) use of an information theoretic measure to guide thecrawling policy instead of using regular supervised learning techniques;and (3) a combination of techniques from different researchcommunities—NLP, Machine Learning, Information Theory and InformationRetrieval—to address the problem of creating a corpus for languagemodels.

Word prediction performed by language models has an important role inmany tasks as e.g. word sense disambiguation, speech recognition,hand-writing recognition, query spelling, and query segmentation. Theapproaches set forth herein provide a new focused crawling strategy tocollect web pages in order to create diverse and generic language modelsin any context. In each crawling cycle, the crawler tries to fill thegaps present in the current language model built from previous cycles,by avoiding visiting pages whose vocabulary is already well representedin the model. The crawler relies on an information theoretic measure toidentify these gaps and then learns link patterns to pages in theseregions in order to guide its visitation policy.

Disclosed are systems, methods, and non-transitory computer-readablestorage media for generating a language model using a diversity crawler.The exemplary system crawls, such as via a crawler operating on acomputing device, a set of documents in a network of interconnecteddevices according to a visitation policy, wherein the visitation policyis configured to focus on novelty regions for a first language model bycrawling documents considered likely to fill gaps in the first languagemodel. The documents can be web pages, but can also include otherdocuments, such as word processing documents on a corporate network thatcontain links to other documents. The links can be contained within thedisplayed data of the documents or in metadata or other data nottypically displayed to users. The system can identify novelty regionsusing an information theoretic measure. The novelty regions can be basedon documents with high perplexity values over the first language model.The system can update the visitation policy for the crawler once acrawling threshold is reached, such as based on an expected perplexityvalue of documents. The system can determine the expected perplexityvalue of a page by evaluating links to the page.

The exemplary system parses at least some of the plurality of documentsinto sentences. The system can trigger parsing based on the completionof a crawling cycle, such as a specific time interval. The examplesprovided herein are primarily based on a one day crawling cycle, butlonger or shorter cycles can be used. Further, the cycles can be of adynamic duration, so that each cycle is not necessarily of the sameduration. The system combines the sentences to yield a second languagemodel. The second language model can be a trigram model built using alanguage modeling toolkit. The system can merge a set of language modelsto yield a combined language model.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

In order to describe the manner in which the above-recited and otheradvantages and features of the disclosure can be obtained, a moreparticular description of the principles briefly described above will berendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which areillustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawingsdepict only exemplary embodiments of the disclosure and are nottherefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope, the principlesherein are described and explained with additional specificity anddetail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:

FIG. 1 illustrates an example system embodiment;

FIG. 2 illustrates an example perplexity of a news story over languagemodels created from news websites;

FIG. 3 illustrates an example crawler architecture;

FIG. 4 illustrates an example distribution of perplexity values from arandom crawl;

FIG. 5 illustrates a comparison of the example distribution ofperplexity values from the random crawl and perplexity values from aperplexity prediction approach;

FIG. 6 illustrates an example proportion of login, subscription, and“contact us” pages in three different perplexity classes;

FIG. 7 illustrates sample perplexity from a four language modelconfiguration over a corpus;

FIG. 8 illustrates example sizes of language models generated by mergingdata collected over several days;

FIG. 9 illustrates an example average perplexity from a diversitycrawler and a random crawler during a crawl cycle;

FIGS. 10A, 10B, and 10C illustrate an example evolution of a perplexitydistribution;

FIG. 11 illustrates an example average perplexity from three differentcrawling cycles;

FIG. 12 illustrates example weights assigned to language models by amerging process; and

FIG. 13 illustrates an example method embodiment.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Various embodiments of the disclosure are discussed in detail below.While specific implementations are discussed, it should be understoodthat this is done for illustration purposes only. A person skilled inthe relevant art will recognize that other components and configurationsmay be used without parting from the spirit and scope of the disclosure.

The present disclosure addresses the need in the art for generatinglanguage models from web based (or other) document collections in anefficient manner. A system, method and non-transitory computer-readablemedia are disclosed which generate language models and also recognizespeech based on the generated language models. A brief introductorydescription of a basic general purpose system or computing device inFIG. 1 which can be employed to practice the concepts is disclosedherein. A more detailed description of the web crawler, language models,and related approaches and algorithms will then follow.

Disclosed herein is an extensive evaluation of the crawling strategyover real web data. This evaluation demonstrates that this approachproduces more effective and diverse language models than the onescreated by a baseline crawler. In some cases the crawler returnedsimilar results to the baseline by crawling only 12.5% of the pagescollected by the baseline. The results also show that the onlinelearning component is able to improve the crawler's performance bylearning the patterns related to the gaps in the language model, evenwhen fewer gaps remain in the language model after some crawling cycles.

The disclosure discusses concepts of a language model and explains theneed for diversification of a language model, then presents the maincomponents for crawling in greater detail. Finally, the disclosurediscusses experimental results. These variations shall be discussedherein as the various embodiments are set forth. The disclosure nowturns to FIG. 1.

With reference to FIG. 1, an exemplary system 100 includes ageneral-purpose computing device 100, including a processing unit (CPUor processor) 120 and a system bus 110 that couples various systemcomponents including the system memory 130 such as read only memory(ROM) 140 and random access memory (RAM) 150 to the processor 120. Thesystem 100 can include a cache of high speed memory connected directlywith, in close proximity to, or integrated as part of the processor 120.The system 100 copies data from the memory 130 and/or the storage device160 to the cache for quick access by the processor 120. In this way, thecache provides a performance boost that avoids processor 120 delayswhile waiting for data. These and other modules can control or beconfigured to control the processor 120 to perform various actions.Other system memory 130 may be available for use as well. The memory 130can include multiple different types of memory with differentperformance characteristics. It can be appreciated that the disclosuremay operate on a computing device 100 with more than one processor 120or on a group or cluster of computing devices networked together toprovide greater processing capability. The processor 120 can include anygeneral purpose processor and a hardware module or software module, suchas module 1 162, module 2 164, and module 3 166 stored in storage device160, configured to control the processor 120 as well as aspecial-purpose processor where software instructions are incorporatedinto the actual processor design. The processor 120 may essentially be acompletely self-contained computing system, containing multiple cores orprocessors, a bus, memory controller, cache, etc. A multi-core processormay be symmetric or asymmetric.

The system bus 110 may be any of several types of bus structuresincluding a memory bus or memory controller, a peripheral bus, and alocal bus using any of a variety of bus architectures. A basicinput/output (BIOS) stored in ROM 140 or the like, may provide the basicroutine that helps to transfer information between elements within thecomputing device 100, such as during start-up. The computing device 100further includes storage devices 160 such as a hard disk drive, amagnetic disk drive, an optical disk drive, tape drive or the like. Thestorage device 160 can include software modules 162, 164, 166 forcontrolling the processor 120. Other hardware or software modules arecontemplated. The storage device 160 is connected to the system bus 110by a drive interface. The drives and the associated computer readablestorage media provide nonvolatile storage of computer readableinstructions, data structures, program modules and other data for thecomputing device 100. In one aspect, a hardware module that performs aparticular function includes the software component stored in anon-transitory computer-readable medium in connection with the necessaryhardware components, such as the processor 120, bus 110, display 170,and so forth, to carry out the function. The basic components are knownto those of skill in the art and appropriate variations are contemplateddepending on the type of device, such as whether the device 100 is asmall, handheld computing device, a desktop computer, or a computerserver.

Although the exemplary embodiment described herein employs the hard disk160, it should be appreciated by those skilled in the art that othertypes of computer readable media which can store data that areaccessible by a computer, such as magnetic cassettes, flash memorycards, digital versatile disks, cartridges, random access memories(RAMs) 150, read only memory (ROM) 140, a cable or wireless signalcontaining a bit stream and the like, may also be used in the exemplaryoperating environment. Non-transitory computer-readable storage mediaexpressly exclude media such as energy, carrier signals, electromagneticwaves, and signals per se.

To enable user interaction with the computing device 100, an inputdevice 190 represents any number of input mechanisms, such as amicrophone for speech, a touch-sensitive screen for gesture or graphicalinput, keyboard, mouse, motion input, speech and so forth. An outputdevice 170 can also be one or more of a number of output mechanismsknown to those of skill in the art. In some instances, multimodalsystems enable a user to provide multiple types of input to communicatewith the computing device 100. The communications interface 180generally governs and manages the user input and system output. There isno restriction on operating on any particular hardware arrangement andtherefore the basic features here may easily be substituted for improvedhardware or firmware arrangements as they are developed.

For clarity of explanation, the illustrative system embodiment ispresented as including individual functional blocks including functionalblocks labeled as a “processor” or processor 120. The functions theseblocks represent may be provided through the use of either shared ordedicated hardware, including, but not limited to, hardware capable ofexecuting software and hardware, such as a processor 120, that ispurpose-built to operate as an equivalent to software executing on ageneral purpose processor. For example the functions of one or moreprocessors presented in FIG. 1 may be provided by a single sharedprocessor or multiple processors. (Use of the term “processor” shouldnot be construed to refer exclusively to hardware capable of executingsoftware.) Illustrative embodiments may include microprocessor and/ordigital signal processor (DSP) hardware, read-only memory (ROM) 140 forstoring software performing the operations discussed below, and randomaccess memory (RAM) 150 for storing results. Very large scaleintegration (VLSI) hardware embodiments, as well as custom VLSIcircuitry in combination with a general purpose DSP circuit, may also beprovided.

The logical operations of the various embodiments are implemented as:(1) a sequence of computer implemented steps, operations, or proceduresrunning on a programmable circuit within a general use computer, (2) asequence of computer implemented steps, operations, or proceduresrunning on a specific-use programmable circuit; and/or (3)interconnected machine modules or program engines within theprogrammable circuits. The system 100 shown in FIG. 1 can practice allor part of the recited methods, can be a part of the recited systems,and/or can operate according to instructions in the recitednon-transitory computer-readable storage media. Such logical operationscan be implemented as modules configured to control the processor 120 toperform particular functions according to the programming of the module.For example, FIG. 1 illustrates three modules Mod1 162, Mod2 164 andMod3 166 which are modules configured to control the processor 120.These modules may be stored on the storage device 160 and loaded intoRAM 150 or memory 130 at runtime or may be stored as would be known inthe art in other computer-readable memory locations.

Having disclosed some components of a computing system, the disclosurenow returns to a discussion of language models and web crawlers. A webcrawler is a computer program that browses a series of interconnectedweb documents in an automated fashion, such as by following linkscontained in one document that point to other documents. For instance,the web crawler can start with one or more “seed” documents, parse theseed document(s) for links to other documents, store those links in acrawling queue, table, or database. As the web crawler processes eachother document, it parses links to yet additional documents, which arein turn added to the crawling queue, table, or database. The web crawlercan continue until a desired information or other threshold is met,until all the links in the crawling queue are exhausted, for aparticular duration of time, up to a particular link depth, or based onsome other measure and/or event. The web crawler disclosed herein can betightly coupled with the goal of creating diverse language models for aparticular domain by filling in the gaps in the current language model.Further, use of an information theoretic measure to guide the crawlingpolicy instead of using regular supervised learning techniques. Theproblem of creating a corpus for language models can be accomplished viathe combination of techniques from different research communities, suchas natural language processing, machine learning, information theory andinformation retrieval.

The disclosure turns now to a discussion of language models. Many speechand language applications need a mechanism to rank sentences accordingto their well-formedness based on the grammar of a language. However,designing such a ranking function is difficult and has eludedresearchers for many years. Instead, the likelihood of a sentence(denoted as P(W), where W is a sentence) in a corpus of text is used anapproximation for grammatically, with the assumption that grammaticallywell-formed sentences occur more often than ungrammatical ones. However,due to sparseness concerns, the probability of the joint event W=w₁, w₂,. . . , w_(m) is approximated using an independence assumption as shownin Equation 2, below, also known as an n-gram model:

$\begin{matrix}{{P(W)} = {\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{m}{P\left( {\left. w_{i} \middle| w_{1} \right.,\ldots \mspace{14mu},w_{i - n + 1}} \right)}}} & (1) \\{{P(W)} = {\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{m}{P\left( {\left. w_{i} \middle| w_{i - 1} \right.,\ldots \mspace{14mu},w_{i - n + 1}} \right)}}} & (2)\end{matrix}$

The individual probabilities in the product are computed using maximumlikelihood estimation from a corpus of word sequences, and when a givenn-gram is not observed in the corpus, then its probability is estimatedusing a lower order n−1 gram.

Besides evaluating the effectiveness of a language model in the contextof a task, such as machine translation or speech recognition, Perplexityis one metric to compare language models independent of the task. Asseen in Equation 2, an n-gram model can be viewed as a model forpredicting the nth word given the preceding n−1 words of history.Perplexity measures the average number of word choices available at eachposition of a word sequence according to the language model. Lowperplexity implies a better fit of the model for the word sequence.Perplexity of a language model P on an m-word sequence W is defined inEquation 3, below:

$\begin{matrix}{{{Perplexity}\left( {P,W} \right)} = {P(W)}^{- \frac{1}{m}}} & (3) \\{{{Perplexity}\left( {P,W} \right)} = \sqrt[m]{\prod\limits_{i = 1}^{m}\frac{1}{P\left( {\left. w_{i} \middle| w_{i - 1} \right.,\ldots \mspace{14mu},w_{i - n + 1}} \right)}}} & (4)\end{matrix}$

The perplexity of a fixed page evolving over different language modelsbuilt over time can provide some insight into perplexity and howperplexity can be associated with time. FIG. 2 illustrates theperplexity of a news story from May 20, 2010 over language modelscreated from news websites between April 15th and June 6th. The closerthe language model is to the story, the smaller the perplexity. In fact,the lowest value is on the day that the story was released and theperplexity increases again afterwards. The vocabulary of pages that havehigh perplexity over a language model represent the gaps on it. Adiversity crawler can exploit this feature.

A crawling strategy that prioritizes diversity can make crawling tocreate a language model more efficient. In order to prioritizediversity, the crawler searches for web regions where the vocabulary ofthe pages is poorly covered by previous crawls. Each crawling cycle isdefined as a specific time interval, such as one day, six hours, twoweeks, or some other static or dynamic time interval. Thus, the currentcycle's crawl will be guided based on the language model created fromprevious cycle's crawls. Pages whose vocabulary is well-covered on thelanguage model contain some common patterns in their links. Thesepatterns will then guide the link visitation of the current cycle'scrawl to avoid collecting similar pages and to focus on pages that arelikely to have information that will fill gaps in the language model.

FIG. 3 illustrates an example architecture of a crawler 300. LM_(hist)318 is the language model from one or more previous crawls and LM_(curr)314 is the language model to be created from the current cycle's crawl.The crawler 300 uses the Perplexity Predictor 326 to guide itsvisitation policy by predicting the expected perplexity with respect toLM_(hist) 318 of a page given its link. The Perplexity Predictor 326sends its prediction 328 to the Frontier Scheduler 330, which thendecides the next or most relevant link 334 to be visited by the crawler302. The Page Parser 306 parses the page 304 to extract links 332. Thedownloaded pages 304 are then stored in the Page Repository 308. ThePage Repository 308 passes pages 310 to the LM Builder 312 to create thenew language model, LM_(curr) 314.

In the next cycle, LM_(curr) 314 replaces LM_(hist) 318. Because thelanguage model changes every cycle, the Adaptive Learner 322 adapt thevisitation policy accordingly by creating a new or updated model 324 forthe Perplexity Predictor 326 as the crawl progresses based on perplexityinformation 220 received from LM_(hist) 318 and on the pages/links 304,332, 316 collected in the current crawl. These components are describedin more detail below.

With respect to the Perplexity Predictor 326, in order to create diverselanguage models, the crawler 300 focuses on novelty regions forLM_(hist) 318. The novelty regions can be modeled as regions thatcontain pages with high perplexity values over LM_(hist) 318. To guidethe crawler visitation policy to these regions, the crawler relies onthe links to pages in these regions. In contrast with known approacheswhich try to focus the crawler on a particular topic, the PerplexityPredictor 322 deemphasizes the pages previously covered, based on anobjective to increase the diversity of the language model.

Formally, let P=p1, . . . , p_(|P|) be the pool of |P| pages and N=n₁, .. . , n_(|P|) be the neighborhoods of the links pointing to these pages.The link neighborhood includes the words in the anchor of the link,words around the link out to a threshold, such as 10 words before andafter the anchor, and/or words the link URL. Equation (5), shown below,illustrates an ideal VP to visit with the k-best pages with the highestperplexity according to LM_(hist) 318. However, this involves crawlingall the pages and evaluating the perplexity of the text on each page,which can be an expensive operation. Rather, the system can estimate theperplexity of the text on a page without crawling it, as shown below:

VP=arg max_(P) _(i) ^((k))Perplexity(LM_(hist) ,p _(i))  (5)

The system can estimate perplexity based on an assumption that the textin the neighborhood of the link that points to the page has somepredictive power about the perplexity of the linked page. The linkneighborhood can contain information that indicates the content of thepage. This indication can be operate at a number of different levels.Certain links may contain no indication of the page's content, when itslink neighborhood is empty or just contains non-descriptive words. Abroad indication, for instance, that a URL containing the term “sports”probably has content about sports in its body but just inspecting it, itis not clear which topic within sports that page discusses. A moredescriptive indication of the page's content, for instance, a URL withthe string “yankees-clinch-playoff-berth-beat-blue-jays” indicates thatits content is about the baseball teams Yankees and Blue Jays, and theirparticipation in playoffs. This approach can be particularly effectivein crawling news sites, blogs, editorials, and similar web sites whichinclude significant human-readable information in URLs.

Estimating the perplexity of a page based on the neighborhood of a pageis a regression problem with the text features of the neighborhoodserving as the independent variables. However, since this is a verynoisy and sparse problem, and the exact perplexity is not necessary whenan approximation of the real value can suffice for the crawlingschedule, the system can aggregate links with similar perplexity valuesin the same class. To make the perplexity values more discrete, thesystem can use an equal-frequency binning approach to avoid the problemof having imbalanced training data. Experimental data have shown thatone suitable number of bins is three, but other numbers of bins can beused. As the overall distribution of perplexity values changes overtime, its distribution within each bin also changes.

To better illustrate the distribution of perplexity values in this task,in FIG. 4 illustrates a distribution of the perplexity of pages from arandom crawl of 100,000 pages at time t₁ from news sites over a languagemodel created in a previous day (LM₀) composed by 100,000 pagescollected using the same strategy on these sites. The perplexity isskewed towards small values. For 40% of the pages the perplexity isbetween 0 and 100, and the higher the perplexity value, the smaller thenumber of pages. This distribution varies over time, skewing moretowards small values, which makes the problem of finding high perplexitypages much harder.

Thus, given the text neighborhood the Perplexity Predictor classifiesn_(i) into a particular perplexity class c using the features (φ)computed from the text of the neighborhood as shown in Equation 6:

c _(i) ^(*)=arg max_(c) P(c|φ(n _(i)))  (6)

Three different exemplary algorithms can be used for textclassification: Naïve Bayes, Support Vector Machines (SVM) and MaximumEntropy (MaxEnt). Other suitable algorithms can be used as well. Fromthe t₁ crawl used in the previously presented perplexity distributionexperiment, the training data was prepared by randomly selecting 48,000links and a different set of 12,000 links as a testing set and, usingthe LM₀ from the same experiment, the perplexity of their respectivepages was calculated over LM₀. The experiment binned the perplexityvalues and trained the different classifiers and evaluated them on thetest set.

Table 1, below, presents the accuracy over the three perplexity classes(Low, Medium, High) and F-measure over the class that corresponds to thehighest expected perplexity values (High). The highest expectedperplexity values are of the most interest, because the links in thisclass might point to pages that can diversify the language model. Thebest results in terms of accuracy were obtained by SVM and MaxEntclassifiers. SVM performed slightly better than MaxEnt for F-measure.

TABLE 1 Algorithm Accuracy F-measure for High Naïve Bayes 0.48 0.45 SVM0.57 0.616 Maxent 0.57 0.613

To verify whether the Perplexity Predictor based crawler performs abetter job than a random crawler, the experiment included two crawls: arandom crawler and a crawler guided by the Perplexity Predictor. FIG. 5shows the percentage of pages for different values of perplexityobtained over LM₀. Whereas 40% of the pages collected by the randomcrawler is between 0-100, only 30% within this range was collected bythe perplexity crawler. Moreover, the perplexity crawler was able tocollect a much higher proportion of pages with perplexity greater than200: 45% versus 35%. Overall, the average perplexity value of the pagesobtained by the perplexity crawler was much higher than the one obtainedby the random crawler: 361 versus 255. These numbers indicate thatPerplexity Predictor is in fact able to focus the crawler on web regionsthat contain high perplexity pages.

The Perplexity Predictor's effectiveness is driven by the ability tocapture the link patterns of stale pages from web site sections whosevocabulary is similar across sites as, e.g., login, subscription andobituary pages. To give a concrete example of this, the experimentlooked at the distribution of login, “contact us” and subscription pagesover the perplexity classes. More specifically, for each class (0,1,2),the Perplexity Predictor classified 3,500 links, the results of whichare plotted in FIG. 6, illustrating the proportion of links of suchpages in each set. FIG. 6 shows that most of the links to these types ofpages were classified as having low perplexity. In fact, looking atfeatures with high information gain in this classification task,patterns in the links as login, log, sign, obituary have high values ofinformation gain.

The disclosure now turns to a discussion of the Frontier Scheduler 330of FIG. 3. Having identified the links to crawl using the PerplexityPredictor, the Frontier Scheduler schedules the next link to be visitedby the crawler. The Frontier Scheduler bases the schedule for visitationon expected perplexity of the links available in the frontier and onother visitation policies, for example, to avoid hitting a same webserver in a short period.

The Frontier Scheduler can be implemented as a set of N queues, eachqueue corresponding to a Perplexity Predictor class. Within a queue,links are ordered based on their likelihood of belonging to the classassociated with the queue. The queue from the highest perplexity classcontains more elements than the other ones. In experimental data, theproportion of the queue sizes was 1 (low), 2 (medium), 10 (high).

As the accuracy of the Perplexity Predictor is far from perfect and alsoto avoid some possible bias contained in the links that might hurt thediversity of the crawl, the crawling frontier can be updated in batches,an example set of steps is provided. When the crawler starts, all seedsare placed in queue 1. At each step, the crawler selects the link withthe highest relevance score from the first nonempty queue. When a pageis downloaded, its links are extracted and added to a separatepersistent frontier according to the prediction of the PerplexityPredictor. Only when the queues in the crawling frontier become empty,the crawler loads the queues from the persistent frontier.

The disclosure turns to the LM Builder 312 of FIG. 3. After the crawlerfinishes its daily cycle, the LM Builder 312 creates a language modelfrom the crawled pages, as shown in Algorithm 1, below:

Algorithm 1:  1: Input: N {N: number of language models to be merged.} 2: predictorLMs = ;  3: loop  4: Input: webPages, devSet {webPages: webpages from today's crawl, devSet: development set.}  5: sents =ParsePages(webPages) {Parse the web pages into sentences.}  6: lm_(n) =CreateLM(sents) {Create today's LM from sentences.}  7: currentLM =CombineLMs(predictorLMs, lm_(n), devSet) {Combine language models usedby the predictorLMs and today's LM.}  8: predictorLMs =SelectLMs(devSet, N) {Select the best LMs from history and combinethem.}  9: end loop 10: Output: predictorLM, currentLM

First, the algorithm parses the web pages downloaded by the crawler inthe Page Repository into sentences. One way to parse web pages is tobreak down the documents based on the HTML tags that correspond to thenewline characters: <p>, <dt>, <dd>, <tr>, <li>, <br> and all headertags such as <h1>, <h2>, etc. The algorithm can parse web pages beyondjust HTML, such as parsing RSS feeds, JSON queries, XML, JavaScript,Flash, or metadata. After removing all of the HTML tags or otherwiseparsing the web page, the system considers the pieces of text locatedbetween these special tokens as sentences. The system can remove all thepunctuation and special characters. If the documents are not HTML baseddocuments, the algorithm can be modified to parse those documentsaccording to their particular formats and data structures.

The next step is to create a language model from these sentences. Thesystem can build trigram models from these sentences. A trigram modelwas used for all the experiments presented herein. The trigram model canbe built using a language modeling toolkit, with a back-off scheme (suchas the Katz back-off scheme) for the n-grams not observed in thetraining corpus. A weighted finite-state acceptor can represent theresulting model and evaluate the perplexity of a given input sentence.

The system can merge the resulting language model with language modelscreated in previous cycles. Under ideal circumstances, the system wouldmerge an infinite number of language models, but in practice, hardware,software, and memory restrictions can limit the total number of languagemodels to be merged. First, the length of the merging process directlycorrelates to the number of models. So as the number of modelsincreases, so does the length of the merging process. When dealing withnewscast information in particular, the length of the merging processcan be an issue because newscast information is very time sensitive, soan up-to-date LM should be used for the word prediction. Spending daysto merge models may not be useful in practice. Second, a higher thenumber of models leads to a longer perplexity computation, because itscalculation time is dependent on the size of the LM. The crawler needsto calculate page perplexity just crawled over on the fly in order toguide its policy according to the current LM. Large perplexitycalculation times cause the online learning to be prohibitive. Balancingthese factors, the system can limit the number of models to merge.Considering the news stories have some kind of decay factor over time,one simple approach considers only the n previous models to merge,because stories that are too old have less impact in current news. This,however, may not work well for all situations because language modelsfrom the past can influence how language models are built in present.Thus, for instance, the language model from the first cycle has agreater influence over stories in many cycles ahead than language modelsbuilt without this dependency.

One solution to this problem is to limit the total number of languagemodels to merge by choosing the k most suitable language models from thepool of previous language models. Given a set of language modelsLM={LM₁, . . . , LM_(n)}, the objective is to provide a weightedinterpolation of the language model as shown in equation 7, below. Thesystem can estimate the weights in this equation using anExpectation-Maximization algorithm to minimize the perplexity of atuning set of sentences.

$\begin{matrix}{{LM}_{merged} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{n}{w_{i}*{LM}_{i}}}} & (7)\end{matrix}$

The development set should reflect current news stories; otherwise itwould give higher weights to a model built in the past that does nothave much influence in the present. The initial pages from the news websites usually contain the most up-to-date information in the site and agood summary of the current main stories. For this reason, thedevelopment set can be a subset of the initial pages of the news sites.This sample may or may not be used in the corpus that creates thelanguage model. Thus, the set of k selected language models can bemerged using the development set to set their weights (predictorLM) andused by the crawler for the next crawl cycle. After the next cycle, theLM generated from the crawl is added to predictorLM using interpolationcreating the LM for the current word prediction (currentLM). Finally, anew predictorLM is created from the current pool of language models forthe next cycle.

The disclosure will now discuss the adaptive learner 322 as shown inFIG. 3. After every crawl the system can build a language model, thepredictorLM, to guide the crawler policy in the next crawling cycle byupdating the Perplexity Predictor according to the new predictorLM. ThePerplexity Predictor matches patterns in the links to pages (linkneighborhood) with perplexity values from a language model to obtainlink neighborhood->perplexity information from the current crawl. Whendealing with a dynamic environment such as new stories (patterns)constantly arising, the patterns of the links used by the PerplexityPredictor operate best when they are up-to-date. That is why patterns inthe links of the current crawl can be used and, as a result, thisprocess should be performed on the fly. The Adaptive Learner updates thePerplexity Predictor as outlined in Algorithm 2, below

Algorithm 2:  1: linkPolicy = random {Initially the crawler uses arandom visitation policy.}  2: loop  3: Input: pages, links,learningThreshold {pages:crawled pages; links:link neighborhoodsassociated to them; learningThreshold:number of pages to trigger theprocess.}  4: if |pages| == learningThreshold then  5: perps =calculatePerplexity(pages) {Calculate the perplexity of given pages.} 6: features = extractFeatures(links) {Extract the features from thelink neighborhoods.}  7: perpPredictor = createPerpPredictor(features;perps) {Create a new Perplexity Predictor from the features andperplexity of the pages.}  8: linkPolicy = updatePolicy(perpPredictor){Update the crawling policy with the new Perplexity Predictor.}  9:updateFrontier(perpPredictor) {Update the expected perplexity of thelinks in the frontier.} 10: end if 11: end loop

Initially, the crawler starts with a random link visitation policy,since it does not know a good strategy to follow for the new languagemodel, predictorLM. After a specified number of crawled pages, thesystem performs a learning iteration by collecting, for each page p, thelink neighborhood of the links that point to p, and the perplexity of pover predictorLM, to generate training data. Then, the system creates anew Perplexity Predictor, updating the crawler's link policy. As thelast step, the Adaptive Learner updates the values of expectedperplexity of the current links in the frontier based on the newPerplexity Predictor. The system can invoke the Adaptive Learnerperiodically, when the crawler visits a pre-determined number of pages.

The disclosure now turns to a discussion of experimental evaluation. Theexperimental evaluation assesses the disclosed crawling strategy tocreate high-quality and more diverse language models by evaluating itsoverall performance on newscast data during a certain period of time.The experiment was set up as discussed below.

The language models' corpus was compiled from web pages crawled from alist of 4,874 news web sites. One goal of the experiment was to creategeneric language models, so the news web sites covered a great varietyof web sites, local, national and international news, as well as newsfrom different topics: business, sports, technology, student life, etc.

The experimental system used two different crawling strategies to createthe corpus for the language models, a random crawl and a diversitycrawl. The random crawler is the baseline approach and randomly selectsthe next link to be visited by the crawler. From the corpus generated bythis crawler, language models were composed in two different ways. Thefirst way is a single language model from the current crawl, denoted asRandom Crawler (Single). The second way is a language model created bythe combination of the LM of the current crawl with previous languagemodels generated by this crawler, denoted as Random Crawler(Merged). TheDiversity Crawler uses perplexity to guide the crawler's policy. Thediversity crawler starts with a random policy. The Adaptive Learner inthis experiment created and updated the Perplexity Predictor when thecrawler collected 15,000, 30,000 and 50,000 pages. Similar to the RandomCrawler, two different language models were composed: a single languagemodel from the current crawl, denoted as Diversity Crawler (Single), anda combination of the current LM with previous language models producedby this crawler, denoted as Diversity Crawler (Merged).

In this experiment, each crawling cycle was one day long. Thus, the twocrawlers ran every day during 23 days of October 2010. Each crawlercollected a total of 100,000 pages, generating a corpus of about 8million sentences, on average. Initially, a random crawl was performedto create the initial LM (day 0), and was used by the Diversity Crawlerto define its policy in the next cycles. A window of eight days was usedto interpolate the language models.

One common way to evaluate language models is by calculating itsperplexity over a test corpus. Because speech recognition is a possibletask that would benefit from the language models created in the newscastdomain, in this experimental evaluation, audio transcripts are used toassess the overall performance of the different approaches. For thispurpose, daily transcripts of TV and radio programs were collected fromthree web sources: CNN: cnn.com provides an archive of transcripts oftheir TV shows as well as of some CNN international and HLN programs;NPR3: NPR makes available an API that can be used to retrieve audio andtranscripts for their main programs (these programs cover a broad rangeof topics: politics, economy, sports, etc.); Livedash: Livedash.com is awebsite in which the user can search over the transcripts of TV shows aswell as read the actual transcripts of these shows (this source providedtranscripts from a total of 21 programs in different topics such assports (e.g. ESPN), business (e.g. CNBC) and general news (e.g. MSNBC,Fox News)).

In order to build broad-domain language models, the experimentsattempted to cover as many different transcripts as possible to evaluatethe approaches. It must be noted that, as some programs are aired onlyon weekdays and others only on weekends, the total number of transcriptsavailable vary over time.

The disclosure now discusses assessing the diversity crawler. FIG. 7presents the perplexity obtained by the 4 different LM configurationsover the daily transcripts. The first thing to note is that theDiversity Crawler(Merged) got the lowest perplexity values on all daysof the experiment, followed by Random Crawler(Merged), DiversityCrawler(Single) and Random Crawler(Single). These numbers confirm thatthe crawling approach disclosed herein combined with the model mergingis in fact effective in building more fresh and diverse language models.In addition to that, the Diversity Crawler(Single) outperforms theRandom Crawler(Single) in all days. This means that, by only using theLM of the day's crawl, the diversity crawler detects more novelty on theLM than the Random Crawler. The diversity crawler does so by avoidingpages whose vocabulary already appeared in the past, or is not usefulfor the day's news as, for instance, stale pages in the websites (e.g.“contact us”, “about”, etc.). Another interesting result from thesenumbers is that the Diversity Crawler(Single), which only uses thecurrent LM produced by the Diversity Crawler, had a performance close tothe Random Crawler (Merged) and, on some days, almost the same (e.g.days 3, 15 and 23). Recall that the Random Crawler (Merged) uses around800,000 pages in its corpus whereas Diversity Crawler(Single) only uses100,000. In terms of numbers of tokens contained in the LM, the LM ofDiversity Crawler(Single) is usually less than half of the RandomCrawler (Merged).

With regard to the changing behavior of these configurations over time,they presented similar trends, as shown in FIG. 8. These trends aremostly influenced by the performance of the LM of the day. Initially,the difference of performance between Diversity Crawler (Merged) andRandom Crawler (Merged) increases for the first eight days, which is thesize of the window of the model merging. This occurs because on eachday, the Diversity Crawler generates a much fresher and more diverse LM.This can clearly be seen by looking at the size of the language modelsproduced by each crawling strategy with merging. FIG. 8 depicts thenumber of tokens that composes the merged language models each day forthe first twelve days (after this period their size did not changemuch). At the beginning, both approaches started from the same LM, i.e.,the language model created on the first day by running a Random Crawler.However, at each day, the Diversity Crawler (Merged) obtained much morenew tokens than the Random Crawler. Since both approaches crawled thesame number of pages, this increased difference of LMs sizes suggeststhat the vocabulary of the pages collected by the Random Crawler has agreater overlap with previous crawls than for the Diversity Crawler.This confirms that the Diversity Crawler is in fact able to produce morediverse language models. After the day 7-10, when the number of languagemodels are fixed to eight, the difference of language models' sizesfluctuates within a small interval, since their sizes did not changemuch. An interesting observation from these numbers is that an LMcreated by the Random Crawler (Merged) with eight models (e.g., day 7)has similar size than an LM with only five models (e.g. day 4) createdby the Diversity Crawler(Merged).

Statistics about the Diversity Crawler performance within cyclesillustrate the behavior of the Diversity Crawler during each crawlingcycle and to show the dynamic nature of the newscasts. FIG. 9 depictsthe perplexity of the pages collected by the Diversity Crawler andRandom Crawler during the crawl of day 1. The perplexities of thesepages were calculated over the LM of day 0 (LM_(hist)), and their valueswere averaged in intervals of 10,000 pages (0-10 k, 10 k-20 k, etc). Asour goal is to obtain as diverse set of pages as possible in relation tothe LM_(hist), the higher the number of high perplexity pages that werecollected, the better is the performance of the crawling approach, sincethe crawler is filling more gaps in the LM. These numbers show that theDiversity Crawler outperforms the Random Crawler throughout the entirecycle. Moreover, the Diversity Crawler improves its performance overtime, mainly because its Adaptive Learner component is able to learn onthe fly the patterns of the links to high perplexity pages, whereas theperformance of the Random Crawler remains almost constant.

As the Diversity Crawler fills the gaps in the language model in eachnew crawling cycle, fewer gaps remain to be filled which makes theproblem of finding new gaps even harder. To illustrate this, FIG. 10illustrates the overall distribution of the perplexity over thecorresponding LM_(hist) from pages collected by the Diversity Crawler inthe first three days of the experiment. The distribution of theperplexity becomes more and more skewed towards pages with lowperplexity making the problem of finding high perplexity pages harder.This is reflected in the overall crawler's performance during eachcycle. FIG. 11 shows the performance over time of the Diversity Crawlersat three different days: 1, 4, 12. The crawler from the first dayobtained many more high perplexity pages than the later ones. In allthree crawls, the Diversity Crawler's performance improves over timebecause the online learning component of the crawler learns patterns inthe links to the pages in the LM gaps.

The system can assign weights to different models by interpolation. FIG.12 shows these weights for the Random and Diversity Crawlers in thefirst eight days of the experiment. Both curves indicate a decay factorover time because the data is time-sensitive. However, the weightsassigned to the more recent models in the Random Crawler are much higherthan the ones assigned to the models created by the Diversity Crawler.Furthermore, the first LM in the Diversity Crawler interpolation has thethird highest weights among the other models in this mixture, whereas inthe Random Crawler interpolation the first LM has the lowest weight.These weights reflect the strategy used by each crawler to collect thedata. As the Diversity Crawler's visitation policy of the current crawlis influenced by previous language models, complimentary in some sense,these language models have a higher influence over the current data and,consequently, have higher weights than the ones created by the RandomCrawler, which produces independent language models. These weights areassigned by interpolation based on the development set. The exponentialdecay of weights indicates that this development set in fact containsup-to-date data.

Having disclosed some basic system components, concepts, andexperimental data, the disclosure now turns to the exemplary methodembodiment shown in FIG. 13 for building a language model. For the sakeof clarity, the method is discussed in terms of an exemplary system 100as shown in FIG. 1 configured to practice the method. The steps outlinedherein are exemplary and can be implemented in any combination thereof,including combinations that exclude, add, or modify certain steps.

The system 100 crawls, such as via a crawler operating on a computingdevice, a plurality of documents in a network of interconnected devicesaccording to a visitation policy, wherein the visitation policy isconfigured to focus on novelty regions for a first language model bycrawling documents considered likely to fill gaps in the first languagemodel (1302). The documents can be web pages, but can also include otherdocuments, such as word processing documents on a corporate network thatcontain links to other documents. The links can be contained within thedisplayed data of the documents or in metadata or other data nottypically displayed to users. The system can identify novelty regionsusing an information theoretic measure. The novelty regions can be basedon documents with high perplexity values over the first language model.The system can update the visitation policy for the crawler once acrawling threshold is reached, such as based on an expected perplexityvalue of documents. The system can determine the expected perplexityvalue of a page by evaluating links to the page.

The system 100 parses at least some of the plurality of documents intosentences (1304). The system can trigger parsing based on the completionof a crawling cycle, such as a specific time interval. The examplesabove are based on a one day crawling cycle, but longer or shortercycles can be used. Further, the cycles can be of a dynamic duration, sothat each cycle is not necessarily of the same duration. The system 100combines the sentences to yield a second language model (1306). Thesecond language model can be a trigram model built using a languagemodeling toolkit. The system can merge a set of language models to yielda combined language model.

The crawling strategy disclosed herein collects a corpus from whichdiverse language models are generated for the open domain of newscasts.Instead of focusing on a particular domain as regular focused crawlers,the disclosed crawler tries to diversify the language model by detectingweb regions whose vocabulary is not well represented in the model,otherwise known as gaps, by identifying high perplexity pages. Thecrawler then learns patterns of links to high perplexity pages in orderto guide its link visitation policy. In a dynamic environment such asnewscasts, the crawler uses an online learning component to adapt itspolicy according to the current state of the environment.

Experimental evaluation shows that the Diversity Crawler is able tocreate more diverse and effective language models than a baselinecrawler, and because the crawler is able to fill in the language model'sgaps, the problem of finding gaps becomes even harder after somecrawling cycles. Although the technique presented herein is discussed interms of the open domain of newscasts, the same approach can be employedby any kind of domain in which diversity in the data is an importantcomponent. For instance, regular web crawlers can be modified toincorporate the crawling techniques disclosed herein to schedule avisitation policy to increase the diversity of the search engine index,which would be very helpful, for example, to create more diverse searchresults.

Embodiments within the scope of the present disclosure may also includetangible and/or non-transitory computer-readable storage media forcarrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structuresstored thereon. Such non-transitory computer-readable storage media canbe any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose orspecial purpose computer, including the functional design of any specialpurpose processor as discussed above. By way of example, and notlimitation, such non-transitory computer-readable media can include RAM,ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storageor other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be usedto carry or store desired program code means in the form ofcomputer-executable instructions, data structures, or processor chipdesign. When information is transferred or provided over a network oranother communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, orcombination thereof) to a computer, the computer properly views theconnection as a computer-readable medium. Thus, any such connection isproperly termed a computer-readable medium. Combinations of the aboveshould also be included within the scope of the computer-readable media.

Computer-executable instructions include, for example, instructions anddata which cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer,or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function orgroup of functions. Computer-executable instructions also includeprogram modules that are executed by computers in stand-alone or networkenvironments. Generally, program modules include routines, programs,components, data structures, objects, and the functions inherent in thedesign of special-purpose processors, etc. that perform particular tasksor implement particular abstract data types. Computer-executableinstructions, associated data structures, and program modules representexamples of the program code means for executing steps of the methodsdisclosed herein. The particular sequence of such executableinstructions or associated data structures represents examples ofcorresponding acts for implementing the functions described in suchsteps.

Those of skill in the art will appreciate that other embodiments of thedisclosure may be practiced in network computing environments with manytypes of computer system configurations, including personal computers,hand-held devices, multi-processor systems, microprocessor-based orprogrammable consumer electronics, network PCs, minicomputers, mainframecomputers, and the like. Embodiments may also be practiced indistributed computing environments where tasks are performed by localand remote processing devices that are linked (either by hardwiredlinks, wireless links, or by a combination thereof) through acommunications network. In a distributed computing environment, programmodules may be located in both local and remote memory storage devices.

The various embodiments described above are provided by way ofillustration only and should not be construed to limit the scope of thedisclosure. Those skilled in the art will readily recognize variousmodifications and changes that may be made to the principles describedherein without following the example embodiments and applicationsillustrated and described herein, and without departing from the spiritand scope of the disclosure.

We claim:
 1. A method comprising: establishing a crawling scheduleconfigured to identify a likelihood of web pages to have informationrelevant for a language model, and wherein the crawling schedule isbased at least in part on a configuration of respective web pages;crawling, via a processor, the web pages based on the crawling schedule,to yield new vocabulary words; and generating a new language model basedat least in part on the new vocabulary words.
 2. The method of claim 1,wherein the new language model is not based on a previous languagemodel.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the new language modelcomprises an update of a previous language model.
 4. The method of claim1, wherein the information relevant for the language model relates to avocabulary gap in the language model.
 5. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising recognizing received speech using the new language model. 6.The method of claim 1, wherein the new language model is generated bymodifying the language model.
 7. The method of claim 1, furthercomprising updating a website visitation policy for the crawling once aspecified number of pages is crawled.
 8. The method of claim 1, whereinthe new language model is generated from a merging of a set of languagemodels.
 9. A system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readablestorage medium having instructions stored which, when executed by theprocessor, cause the processor to perform instructions comprising:establishing a crawling schedule configured to identify a likelihood ofweb pages to have information relevant for a language model, and whereinthe crawling schedule is based at least in part on a configuration ofrespective web pages; crawling the web pages based on the crawlingschedule, to yield new vocabulary words; and generating a new languagemodel based at least in part on the new vocabulary words.
 10. The systemof claim 9, wherein the new language model is not based on a previouslanguage model.
 11. The system of claim 9, wherein the new languagemodel comprises an update of a previous language model.
 12. The systemof claim 9, wherein the information relevant for the language modelrelates to a vocabulary gap in the language model.
 13. The system ofclaim 9, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores additionalinstructions stored which, when executed by the processor, cause theprocessor to perform instructions further comprising: recognizingreceived speech using the new language model.
 14. The system of claim 9,wherein the new language model is generated by modifying the languagemodel.
 15. The system of claim 9, wherein the computer-readable storagemedium stores additional instructions stored which, when executed by theprocessor, cause the processor to perform instructions furthercomprising: updating a website visitation policy for the crawling once aspecified number of pages is crawled.
 16. The system of claim 9, whereinthe new language model is generated from a merging of a set of languagemodels.
 17. A non-transitory computer-readable storage device havinginstructions stored which, when executed by a computing device, causethe computing device to perform operations comprising: establishing acrawling schedule configured to identify a likelihood of web pages tohave information relevant for a language model, and wherein the crawlingschedule is based at least in part on a configuration of respective webpages; crawling the web pages based on the crawling schedule, to yieldnew vocabulary words; and generating a new language model based at leastin part on the new vocabulary words.
 18. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage device of claim 17, wherein the new languagemodel is not based on a previous language model.
 19. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage device of claim 17, wherein the new languagemodel comprises an update of a previous language model.
 20. Thenon-transitory computer-readable storage device of claim 17, wherein theinformation relevant for the language model relates to a vocabulary gapin the language model.